Daniel Stern

By Daniel Stern, DVN Editor

I’m frequently contacted by American and Canadian drivers frustrated with how difficult it is, often practically impossible, to get headlamps aimed properly. Optical headlamp aiming machines similar to those long used in Europe have been widely available in North America for years, but most shops don’t have them; most of those that have them, don’t use them, and most that use them don’t use them correctly or carefully. It is vexingly difficult in most places to find a shop that will do anything but crank the aim randomly upward if the driver says they can’t see well, or randomly downward if the driver says they get flashed by oncoming drivers. Consider this email that recently hit my desk:

I noticed my headlamps seemed to be aimed very low on my Lexus, so I went to my dealer and asked if they could use their optical aiming machine and point them in the correct direction. Their “master technician” informed me that they do own the correct machine, but it can’t be used to aim the headlights on my 2013 Lexus and instead they would aim them by shining them on a wall.

I figured they would have access to a better aiming wall and flatter pavement than I would, so I accepted this explanation. They made a complete mess of it and I ended up being charged an hour of labour for them to aim my lights upward by what they informed me was 1.5 degrees(!) but looks like probably even more than that. They took a situation that started bad and made it worse.

DVN reported on NHTSA’s request for comment on the agency’s proposed addition of a crash-avoidance element to the US NCAP, including lighting and active-safety systems.

Then we analysed the proposed low-beam headlight performance protocol. The nominal deadline of 16 February has passed, but NHTSA—adhering to their custom—are still accepting and posting comments, including by some automakers and other high-profile commenters. So interested parties who haven’t yet sent in comments shouldn’t feel they’ve missed their chance; the comment portal remains open as of this writing. Now let’s take a look at some of the lighting- and active-safety-related comments amongst the 288 sent in so far.

Commenters can be loosely categorised as follows, grouped a little differently than in other contexts, and with some degree of overlap:
• Automakers and parts suppliers, auto industry consortiums;
• Safety or research organisations and advocacy groups;
• Unaffiliated experts (here meaning individuals having relevant knowledge or training);
• General public (here meaning individuals not trained or educated in vehicle lighting or driver vision).

General Public & the Unaffiliated
Virtually all of the comments from the general public are to do with lighting and active safety. This is unsurprising; every traffic participant sees and interacts with vehicle lighting equipment virtually every day, but very few members of the general public have occasion to ponder the minutiæ of crashworthiness, pedestrian-protection standards, test dummies, and suchlike. There have been several comments from the general public and unaffiliated experts asking (or begging, pleading, scolding…) NHTSA, sometimes with analysis and documentary support, to go beyond their proposal and get amber rear turn signals onto all vehicles by requiring them, not merely encouraging them via NCAP. One member of the public, a professional driver, shared her thoughts on how the lack of uniform turn signals, as well as glare and poor performance from headlamps, create a hostile working environment for her.